This "girl" created this undertaking by selling t-shirts in 1996 when she was 23 years old. She didn't actually launch a site until several years later and it honestly looks mostly abandonded given the extreme lack of updates and the counter set to July of last year. But she was into this whole thing enough to actually get a registered copyright for her site name and her logo/trademarks.

There is what I would expect. An about page, anti-porn resources (becuase porn = detrimental to women always), testimonials and praise, links to other feminist sites, the T-Shirt business so you can buy new and more interesting labels for yourself, and a boycott list. OH BUT WAIT. She's been clever enough to call them GIRLCOTTS. Becuase she's a GIRL. So it's a GIRLCOTT.

Her boycott list is topped with Nestle. Becuase they encourage the use of formula instead of breast milk. I have had many friends who - if they weren't allowed to use formula - would have just had to watch their children starve to death. So I don't feel a lot of sympathy for this one. Yes - The WHO wants people in third world countries to breastfeed becuase it encourages a more healthful society. But apparently you're not supposed to advertise these alternatives. It's some WHO code.

And most of the things on their list I don't mind becuase they're the typical dumb, one dimensional angry feminist arguments. Coors - sexist markettings. Mike's Hard Lemonade - sponsor of the Man Show, etc. But - the other slam against Nestle they list is their Yorkie chocolate bar which says" too intense for girls" on the wrapper.

So my problem here is - why isn't Secret on this list? Mitchum is. Apparently being a "Mitchum Man" (and that's how I know this site isn't updated.. not a single mention of Axe body spray) is a horrendous sexist affront. So why not Secret? "Strong enough for a man, PH balanced for a woman". So it has to be STRONGER to contend with the overpowering stench of men, but it is still delicate and balanced for the porcelin doll of a woman you know you are. But - hey - it's negatively slanted toward men (men = super stinky) and "positively" slanted toward women (women = complex and delicate) so it's okay. But why isn't the assumption that men smell bad and women are delicate flowers an affront to the feminist set of ideals?

This is the kind of assinine "I want to be angry about all the things that have never personally affected me" bullshit that makes it difficult to personally identify with any of the various "types" of self-described feminists I've encountered. Right down to her assumption that if you were a feminist - you were anti-republican. That if you were feminist you were pro-animal rights. That if you were feminist you were anti-porn, anti-fashion, anti-oil, anti-anything she personally had deemed a platform of the "right". And ya know... she's probably right 99% of the time. Becuase people don't formulate their own ideas about things... they buy a box-set of morals and ideals and wear every bit of it. Like going to JC Penney and picking up every piece of the pre-coordinated work separates because they go together. But isn't the assumption that women are all into the same thing just as backward as the assumption that all women want to get married, have kids and be housewives?

I have two pairs of No Sweat brand sneakers. This is becuase I wanted some basic converse-type sneakers but refuse to buy converse becuase they're owned by Nike and they were recommended to me a very very long time ago by someone who was happy with how long the things lasted. I have a few boycott-y things I do... but they're things I don't personally buy becuase I have issues with the company. Not something told me I shouldn't buy.

I hadn't been to No logo until you mentioned it. Aaaaand it's horrible. Like Mother Jones but without all that journalistic credibility, source finding, and meaningful commentary.